Another witness to his drunkedness in college comes forth and says he lied to Congress.
I don’t think that color choice was entirely arbitrary.
I thought this wasn’t a trial.
No, seriously. The way a person acts to accusations against him of sexual assault is not necessarily an indication of how he will reacts as a judge, in court. If you have examples of his poor judicial temperament, as a judge, that would be relevant. He’s been a judge for quite some time, so lots of veins to be mined.
Wrong. A right wing friend of mine posted a video of a woman who claims HRC raped her in '78. It’s an example of right-wing hypocrisy, donchaknow. :mad:
This idea that “both sides do it” is belied by the fact that Donald Trump is president, while the Donald Trump of the Democratic party is completely unknown because he or she has not been elevated to anything higher than posting ranting comments on youtube videos.
The Jesuits note that the “nomination has also become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.” Naturally, the Jesuits don’t want people to think they can get away with sexual assault. I suppose we’re past the point where Kavanaugh could be quietly reassigned to a lower court.
That is wonderful.
I have not laughed in days. Thank you. 
But the way that a person acts under pressure is very often a far better indicator of character than rehearsed empty claims, like when Kavanaugh claimed in confirmation hearings earlier this month that “A good judge must be an umpire — a neutral and impartial arbiter who favours no litigant or policy”. Yet his performance at this hearing was anything but that. I suggest you read this thoughtful analysis:
One had a right to expect – as I did – that Kavanaugh would present as a dignified and credible witness to his own character as befits an aspiring Supreme Court justice. Instead we got an angry spittle-mouthed partisan shouting that “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fuelled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election,” an invective that he made without evidence, further blaming his misfortunes on “revenge by the Clintons” and “millions of dollars of left-wing money”. The hateful partisanship was really appalling.
This is hardly a person anyone should want on the Supreme Court regardless of one’s ideology. To quote a legal analyst from the cited article, in a rather spectacular understatement, “One of the important criteria [for a Supreme Court nominee] is judicial temperament. Unfortunately, this suggests he’s partisan and very political.”
I think one of the reasons Kavanaugh may be so angry is that he correctly perceives that not only may his Supreme Court nomination be in jeopardy, but so might his present job on an appeals court, and rightly so.
At this point, and actually long before this point, it isn’t about putting the most highly qualified, most judicial and fair-minded, candidates on the Court for the benefit of the country. It’s simply about Winning as if they’re all Charlie Sheen. It’s pure, atavistic tribalism, except that they see their tribe as being only part of the country, not all of it, with the other part actually being the enemy who must be defeated.
Besides, sexual harassers are already represented on the Court.
What would the reaction have been if he were a woman?
The current batch of Republicans, anyway.
Regardless of what happens with this confirmation, whether he it elevated to the Supreme Court or has to settle with merely being on the second most powerful court in the country, Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying to Congress.
Hogwash. He had one job to do on Thursday. One job, and he completely blew it. Convincing the committee and the public that he was a man of too much honesty, integrity, and self-control to pose a problem on the SC may not have been an easy task, but there is little evidence that he even tried to do that.
He approached the hearing as if his accusers were the Dems, not private citizens. He approached the hearing as if was entitled to an immediate yes vote and was being cheated of that. Sure, be mad all you want if you think people have falsely accused you of something. But there is no defense for taking that anger out on Senators tasked with asking you questions about it. Would Kavanaugh put up with that kind of behavior in trials he’s presided over? What would any of us make of a job candidate who became defensive and combative when asked about some unpleasantness in their resume?
The truth is we have no way of directly observing his temperament except from what he showed us at the hearing. If I interviewed for a prestigious position and acted like a hot-headed fool, it’s unlikely the hiring official would say the temperament I showed has no bearing on what I’m probably like on the job. I see no reason why Kav deserves to be assessed any differently.
It was an amazing speech, alright. To the extent that Sen. Graham can say anything with a straight face.
-
“If you had wanted an FBI investigation, you could have come to us.” Total bullshit. The Democrats did ask for one earlier, and got bupkus.
-
You want to keep this seat open until the 2020 election, so you can have it: Utter hypocrisy. We all know what he and the Republicans did to the Merrick Garland nomination.
-
“If you really wanted to know the truth…” If he and the other Republicans had wanted this, they would have allowed Democrats to issue subpoenas, call witnesses etc.
-
He asked Kavanaugh “are you a gang rapist?” Typical phony debating technique. Ask if someone did something much worse than what he’s begin accused of to make the actual claim seem harmless in comparison.
-
He claims that a full background check is going to reduce the number of good people who want to go into public service. If one knows the check will be thorough, I would argue that this will discourage those with things they want to hide, that could legitimately disqualify them, from doing so.
-
“You were looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend.” Well, at least we certainly agree on that!
I could go on.
I’ll give him this, though. He almost hid that fact that his “spontaneous” rant was in fact carefully planned, right down to the notes he was glancing at while giving it. :rolleyes:
-
No one said it was a trial.
-
Judicial temperament is not just what you do on the bench. It may be what you do in life, but most assuredly it is what you do while you are in front of congress asking for a supreme court seat.
-
He said things that are immediately disqualifying. His performance on Thursday was a disaster. It was contemptuous, unhinged, entitled, a sequence of irrelevancies. He showed himself to be a badgering bully. It was an insult to most americans. It is a clear statement that if he goes on the court we are in a civil war. He brought that to the hearing and has to take responsibility for that.
-
Most of all, from his tone and content we know he was lying to the committee, in a taunting transparent way, and flaunting it. This would be disqualifying in any era of the US hisotry until right now, and it’s a gamble even now. It’s pure front and chutzpah. The yearbook BS was the height of contempt for the law, congress and the american people. This is why it’s a civil war.
Because this nominee has a long (mostly concealed) record of supporting presidential authority.
Kavanaugh pointedly did not answer the question posed to him about whether a president can pardon himself. He also believes a president should not be investigated, sued or prosecuted while in office.
These are views that are far outside the mainstream, even among traditional conservatives – but not outside the views of one Mr. Dick Cheney, who, along with his old cohort, GWB, is pushing this confirmation hard.
Haven’t you noticed how many old Bush 43 cohorts are running around the White House and as talking heads on cable news? I’m sure you have. Trump’s “administration,” to the extent that there is one, has simply been co-opted by the old Bushies. Remember who was sitting behind Kavanaugh during the first confirmation hearings? In case you couldn’t/didn’t watch, I’ll tell you: Condoleezza Rice.
I don’t think McConnell dared believe he could put such a partisan ideologue on the SCOTUS, but here he is. And Kavanaugh is so close he can smell it. Just… two… more… votes.
If I were either Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski, I’d head to Bimini for the week.
I’ve found this whole thing Inspirational.
I’m Inspired to track down and destroy every copy of my Senior Year High School Yearbook. 
Republican Presidents only. He had the opposite extreme view of President Clinton, and has never explained his shift.
I’d rather they just quit ducking, remember who they really represent and who their responsibilities are to, and act accordingly. It may not be easy, but it’s simple.
I rise to quibble. The Party Formerly Known as Republican is determined to place an indelible stamp on the nation. Which is fair and reasonable if you believe that your actually represent the views of the majority of Americans. So, they do believe it, it makes it far more palatable. They don’t see themselves as valiant rear-guard defenders of values fading away. They see themselves as valiant defenders of the oppressed majority.
Evidence: Il Douche’s claim that the lost the popular vote due to a massive influx of “illegal votes”. They bought it.
Its why they believe so fervently in voter fraud, and voter ID to cure it. THEY are the oppressed, the true majority groaning under the weight of fake news and liberal elites. Dirty tricks on gerrymandering are unseemly, true, but they are just getting back what was stolen! Soon as all these problems are fixed, then they can go back to winning fair and square.
Show the them numbers, the data, and its like throwing Nerf balls at Robocop. And that doesn’t even touch on the ones smart enough to know better, but support the agenda anyway. They don’t advance such theories, they just get real busy checking their phones while someone else does.
Here endeth the quibble.
I just watched the news I had recorded from last night, and I didn’t see any explanation about how the FBI report will be handled once it’s done. Are we going to get to see it? How are the Senators supposed to debate it, or are they even going to have time to do so? I assume it doesn’t go back to Committee, as they have already voted.
But that view stems from, or is at least enabled by, tribalism. You can’t see yourselves as being oppressed by Them unless you first think of them as Them.
Yes, there are those cynical enough to use the Useful Idiots in the cause of an agenda, whether it’s to get tax breaks and get rid of pesky regulations, or to save the babies and the guns. But the UI’s are the bulk of them.
We don’t even disagree.